Sri Lankappa & Ors. vs Karnataka Industrial Corporation & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

8 December 2021

Case No.

Civil Appeal No.7545 of 2021

Result

Allowed

Bench

Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat

Citation

[2021] 9 S.C.R. 521 : 2021 INSC 841

Headnote

Suit – Declaration of title and possession – The appellants had filed a suit seeking declaration of title and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property – The appellants case was that they were owners in possession of the suit schedule property – It was alleged by the Karnataka Industrial Corporation (KIC) that by order dated 25.03.1968, the Karnataka Government had granted the suit schedule property to it, for non-agricultural use, and the appellants sought to interfere with KIC’s possession – During the pendency of the appellant’s suit, KIC filed suit claiming injunction to restrain the appellant from disturbing its possession of the suit schedule property – Both the suit were tried together – The trial Court held that appellants were able to establish their continued, unhindered and unhampered possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since 1929 and they had perfected their title against the Karnataka Government in 1963 – Hence, the Karnataka Government had no rights and title over the suit schedule property on the date of grant i.e. on 25.03.1968 – The grant in the favour of the KIC was ineffective – Aggrieved, the KIC filed appeal, which was dismissed – Second appeal filed by KIC was also dismissed by the High Court – Appeal before the Supreme Court was again dismissed, therefore, the matter attained finality – In 2018, the KIC filed another suit for declaration that it was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property – The plaint of the KIC in the subsequent suit was rejected by the trial Court, considering all the previous facts and history of the litigation – However, the High Court set aside the order rejecting plaint and held that in the circumstances of the case, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to issue summons, and its suo motu determination on the maintainability of the suit before such issuance was erroneous – On appeal, held: In the instant case, KIC sought only a permanent injunction inits first suit – However, it is a fact of equal importance that the appellants had consistently agitated KIC’s title and KIC was a party to those proceedings – All the Courts concurrently held that the grant, on which KIC based its possession, was deemed to be cancelled – Therefore, KIC could, by no procedure known to law,claim in another suit, that it was the absolute owner by virtue of the selfsame grant, which was deemed to have been cancelled – The trial Court therefore cannot be faulted with for holding that the question of title was directly in issue in the previous proceedings, and merely because it resulted in findings adverse to KIC, it could not escape being bound by those findings – Thus, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.

The Order of the Court was passed by S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. Special leave granted. The appellants are aggrieved by a judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court1 which allowed the regular first appeal filed by the first respondent (Karnataka Industrial Corporation, hereafter called “KIC”). 2. The appellants had filed a suit2 seeking declaration of title and injunction in respect of suit properties as stipulated in the schedule 3 (hereafter called “Suit Schedule Property”) which were 11 acres and 16 guntas of agricultural land. Muninarayana Gowda, Putta s/o Ramanna, Sampath s/o Hanumanth

View Subscription Plans →